I found the Dawn of the Dead remake to be largely forgettable, but I must say that I felt the opening sequence was very well done (in an action movie sense). After the female lead reaches the mall, the film heads downhill for me.

Lyonid:I found the Dawn of the Dead remake to be largely forgettable, but I must say that I felt the opening sequence was very well done (in an action movie sense). After the female lead reaches the mall, the film heads downhill for me.

It's like someone idea of a Romero flick that only knows "Return of the Living Dead" and doesn't get the good parts.

StoPPeRmobile:It's like someone idea of a Romero flick that only knows "Return of the Living Dead" and doesn't get the good parts.

It kills me that the whole zombies "brains" thing comes from Return of the Living Dead but if you asked the average person who says "braaaaaaiiiinnns" when talking about zombies why they say that, chances are they never even SAW Return of the Living Dead!

I thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was really good and Sarah Polly was adorable. It barely qualified as a remake though. The only similarities with the original was it was zombies in a mall. The characters and story were completely different.

buntz:StoPPeRmobile: It's like someone idea of a Romero flick that only knows "Return of the Living Dead" and doesn't get the good parts.

It kills me that the whole zombies "brains" thing comes from Return of the Living Dead but if you asked the average person who says "braaaaaaiiiinnns" when talking about zombies why they say that, chances are they never even SAW Return of the Living Dead!

Dark Water? Really? Having seen both, I'd say the remake is a perfectly good family drama, but that's all it is. It's basically a neutered, sanitized version with the bargain at the end spelled out in giant letters to make sure absolutely everybody got it.

The rest of the list:

Texas Chainsaw thingie: Never seen any of these.The Ring: The original was crude but effective, despite the cheap "inverse" effects. The remake was slick, shallow, and utterly awful.Body Snatchers. I would have voted for this if it wasn't for a certain other movie.Hills have Eyes: Haven't seen either.The Grudge: The original TV-straight-to-video version -- "Ju-On" -- was great. IMO the japanese movie remake was OK, but nothing more. Ditto the Buffy version.The Fly: I liked the remake, but never saw the original.Don't be afraid of the dark: Meh to the remake. Never saw the original.Dawn of the Dead: The opening scene was awesome. The rest was "just another zombie movie." Never saw the original. Also, seen enough zombies for a while.The Thing: Got my vote. The original (1951) was only so-so. Carpenter's remake was something special. It didn't impress me that much when I first saw it, but it's aged well. (the recent "prequel / remake" was a big fat nothing, IMO)

So where is Psycho (1998)? It was a shot for shot remake except it added a scene of Vince Vaghn beating off whilst watching Anne Heche in the shower, which I thought was a much needed element that Alfred Hitchcock just dropped the ball on in the original. Plus there was an excellent view of Anne Heche's asshole. Alfred Hitchcock. Farking hack.

thecpt:for a second I thought they were trying to say the newest "the thing" was good. talk about meh.

I don't know why everyone rails on that one. It wasn't a remake, it was a prequel. And in this day and age when we are retreading every farking thing under the son, it stands pretty much alone as a decently done homage to John's version. It's slow build, decent effects, and never feels like an inside joke. Hell, had the 85 version never been made the 2011 would have been up there as one of the best horror movies in a long time.

MyKingdomForYourHorse:thecpt: for a second I thought they were trying to say the newest "the thing" was good. talk about meh.

I don't know why everyone rails on that one. It wasn't a remake, it was a prequel. And in this day and age when we are retreading every farking thing under the son, it stands pretty much alone as a decently done homage to John's version. It's slow build, decent effects, and never feels like an inside joke. Hell, had the 85 version never been made the 2011 would have been up there as one of the best horror movies in a long time.

well that's the thing, it followed nearly the exact same plot and progression. It never felt like it "added" to the horror or like it even tried to put a different spin on it. I still enjoyed it, but I wanted something that was going to be slightly different. The only added element was the language barrier, which wasn't much really.

Tat'dGreaser:Cause they were stupid!!! There were so many chances to kill the bad guys it was ridiculous. They got bested by a bunch of idiots in masks. COME ON

Granted they were psychopaths and they weren't sure what they were capable of. They could of sat in that room all day camping that door with the gun, but the sickos would've lit the cabin on fire. I'm not sure of the number of times they could've killed them, but I don't think it was a high number.

/you like horror where the pretense is that there can't be a gun? or the use of one is most likely detrimental? I like the descent

thecpt:well that's the thing, it followed nearly the exact same plot and progression. It never felt like it "added" to the horror or like it even tried to put a different spin on it. I still enjoyed it, but I wanted something that was going to be slightly different. The only added element was the language barrier, which wasn't much really.

I guess I had a different take on it, I thought it added enough back scatter to stand on its own. And of course it would take a similar arc, its the thing. It imitates and tries to infiltrate, I'd be a little pissed if it did something dramatically different.